Uncyclopedia:VFH/Unfomercial:Playstation

Article: Unfomercial:Playstation	Score: 3
Nominated by:	Matfen 20:27, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
For: 10	Nom/For. That's right. We even have our own commercials now. Didn't leave a funny scoretext so as not to ruin the surprise. --Matfen 20:27, June 14, 2010 (UTC) LOL. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:24, 14 June 2010 Yes, please Nice work. Aleister in Chains 00:42 15 6 MMX For. It's one joke, but it's a pretty damn good one joke. --SirIsaac 00:50, June 15, 2010 (UTC) 00:49, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Pacman. Wilytank has a point, but until you can upload videos directly to Uncyc, it'll do. Would you like a cookie, sir? 02:39,15June,2010 For. I was gonna vote against, but then I saw POTR made the video. --—Sah Paizure CUM DotM JotM FBotM VFH VFD FFS ZOMG ROFL WTF AAA (Tlak) 02:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC) For. Per Chedds and to Wily - I can't upload the video to Uncyc, so I've placed in on youtube and directed the page there. The "external source" here is simply where I've placed the video so it can be shown here. I'd agree completely if this wasn't the work of the Uncyclopedian who created the article - in this case it is. Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 03:55, Jun 15 2010 UTC Very For both skillful video editing and an Unformercial that's actually, well, a commercial. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:18, June 15, 2010 (UTC) For. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA InMooseWeTrust 09:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC) For Buttsexs. -- hopeless Ape (vomit) (Riot Porn) 15:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC) For! I always thought they went off for a cuddle. ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* (talk) (stalk) Π ~ ~ 20 Jun 2010 ~ 09:16 (UTC)
Against: 7	Against. I don't find pages that use external sources for central humor highlightable. Wilytank 01:28, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Against. A tech wizard did it. Was that it? --*RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 07:02, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Against. its a funny video, but it should just be included like an advert in an article rather then be a featured article, as it's not really an article. -Maniac1075^{Complain Here} 07:08, June 17, 2010 (UTC) Against. It's a video, not an article. I don't really think it's a particularly good video either, it uses an old joke. Sadistic Wolf 16:15, June 17, 2010 (UTC) On second thoughts, I don't really think we should start featuring funny YouTube videos. Seems like a bad road. -- hopeless Ape (vomit) (Riot Porn) 17:53, June 17, 2010 (UTC) Against. Copyvio. M1n1luv 04:37, June 19, 2010 (UTC) W-What?--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK** ) On Saturday, 05:09, June 19 2010 UTC 05:09, June 19, 2010 (UTC) I feel so guilty about potentially violating copyright. I'm going to atone for my sins by remaking an anti-copyright violation video without obtaining prior consent from the copyright owners. Nominally Humane! some time Saturday, 06:35, Jun 19 2010 UTC Per all the other against votes. --Black Flamingo 09:04, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	My problem with this is that I don't think the guys give each other a "Whoo, let's get it on/Ah, babe, let's get it on" look. It makes me not believe they're actually fucking each other. I see them with more of a "Dude! Pizza!" "Fuck yeah! Just let me pause the game" look. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here That's because it's buttsex between bros, bro. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:25, June 16, 2010 (UTC) Think of it more like "Dude! Buttsex!" "Fuck yeah! Just let me grab some lube" Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 03:13, Jun 16 2010 UTC Comment. screw buttsex, i want a blowjob... been so long since I had one I forget how they taste. -Maniac1075^{Complain Here} 16:02, June 17, 2010 (UTC)